25 February 2010
09:2641341#1
Well RBS declare in 2009 a £3.6 billion loss and yet their staff are sharing £1.3 billion in bonus payments. We the taxpayer own 84% and yet the Government does nothing.
Thousands have lost their jobs due to the recession because their empoyment has gone bust for whatever reason and many are on the breadline, lost homes etc. So why are RBS getting such high bonus payments to enjoy their expected high standard of living, a bonus should be paid for success not failure.
Also British Gas profits up 50%. What is the Governments Watchdogs doing to control the utilities making excessive profits.
Guest 686- Registered: 5 May 2009
- Posts: 556
25 February 2010
10:0441342#2
As I understand it the reason that the banks are able to get away with paying these bonuses is that if they didn't then their oh-so-clever traders would run off and work for another financial institution.
I don't follow that logic. If all banks are in the same boat, having between them caused the financial crisis in the first place, who are they going to run off to?
Phil West
If at first you don't succeed, use a BIGGER hammer!!
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
25 February 2010
11:0541346#3
It seems despite the political huffing and puffing we can do little about the banks. Some executives have bypassed their large bonuses at several banks so some of this public pressure is working but clearly they dont give much of a fig.
The British Gas profits are a bit of an old chestnut on here. Record profits once again and in a time period when all their customers, you and me, are suffering economic pain..they continue to charge us as much as possible and as much as they can get away with. No doubt we will get the usual company waffle about buying in gas when prices were high and so forth, but a company like this can easily delay their reductions in price to customers and maximise profits in that delay period. Its easily done and they do it without any moral guilt whatsoever.
25 February 2010
11:5441347#4
The banking staff would "run off" to other banks who were more successful in getting through the recent crisis. Only a handful of banks actually got it badly wrong. For instance, Standard Chartered Bank, Goldman Sachs and Banco Santander, to name only three of the many, have maintained or enhanced their market position even though times were tough.
As for British Gas, they are in business to make a profit and to re-invest those profits in the industry techology to ensure future supplies. Tesco also make millions/billions but I don't hear anyone clamouring for them to reduce their store prices. So, I guess it's all perception and a hankering for retribution for ex-nationalised industries that were incapable of making profits when owned by government but are now outstanding success. 50% profit is a lot I agree, but is that before tax, after tax? Do we know how it has been calculated? Balance Sheets and P&L's are very complex for organisations of this size, and it is easy to get things out of context.
Perhaps if more British companies were as successful as the likes of BP, BT and British Gas we wouldn't have so much of our industry being owned by overseas companies or going bust. If 50% profit helps keep British Gas, British, then I for one can deal wih it. Who wouild prefer 5% profit, low gas prices and our money going to an overseas company?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 February 2010
15:4541362#5
a llot of small business say that RBS refuse to lend them money. yet others are only too willing.
i thought that the bail out included the proviso that they started lending in a responsible way.
25 February 2010
16:5141370#6
You're right Howard, and we now see the true colours of the banking industry. Something our government failed and still fails to do, and take appropriate action.
Interestingly, Gordie in the House yesterday, mentioned action on "cash bonuses"; I think he said next year too. So how long will it be before cash bonuses become shares/options, speed boats, sports cars, houses, planes, helicopters and the like? I am frankly staggered that in 2009 a government could be so naive to think banks will only give cash bonuses.
Having said that, I have no problem with folks being rewarded for doing a good job or companies with renumeration plans to ensure they get/retain the best in class for thier organisation. It's a tough world out there, not some hippy/commie share and share alike, equal bits for all type world. Only the strongest and fittest will survive and our banks are cometing globally where there aren't restrictions on remuneration in place.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
25 February 2010
19:0841380#7
There's not much I can add to Sid's very pertinent and well expressed posts, except to bring up a point made about this topic this morning on the BBC: how is it that banking salaries and bonuses have become so out of kilter with the rest of scoiety's salaries? Some bloke on BBC Breakfast was saying that it's only about 150 people in the UK who have caused all this damage, so I reckon the way to put all this right is to legislate.
Quite rightly, Sid says that the banks will get round round this bank bonus lark by paying the bonuses in kind. So, if they want to bend the rules, make the rules inflexible by outlawing all bonus payments completely in any shape or format; if these people are worth the money (and they're plainly not), make their basic salaries attractive enough to keep them, and they can pay the highest rate of taxation on that salary. If they're not worth the money, they can bugger off to the States where their colleagues (presumably just another 150) nearly bankrupted the largest economy in the world. Talents such as this we can do without.
It's the culture of City greed we must get rid of. Tighten the laws and send them abroad.
True friends stab you in the front.
25 February 2010
19:3741385#8
No no no no no no and thrice no again! That is absolutely NOT the answer Andy.
For heaven's sake, these guys/gals operate in a GLOBAL economy. If we take a typically socialist (legislation happy) attitude to entrepeneurship, they will go overseas as you want, but take the whole investment banking industry with them and UK PLC will lose tens of thousands of jobs. Blimey, at least Gordie understands that much.
His tack is to try for a global approach to solving this matter. He doesn't stand a chance of getting global agreement, but fair play to him for trying. Cameron meanwhile focusses on trivia and that is probably why the Tory score in polls is slumping.
The nature of the investment banking industry is one of taking financial risks to make high profits, the result being the only thing that matters. Profit = bonus, Loss = sack. There is no middle ground and only the talented survive what is a very short career anyway. And before we send out the lynch party, who foresaw a global meltdown? Nobody.
I'm sorry, I feel very strongly that we should stop knocking and get behind our industries and do whatever we can to make them stronger, whilst at the same time understanding that sometimes, things don't go as planned.
Unregistered User
25 February 2010
20:0141388#9
I'm with you Sid.
Watty
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
25 February 2010
21:0141392#10
Largely, I'm with Sid, too. But Profit = Bonus, Loss = Sack hasn't happened with RBS, has it? £13bn loss = £1.3bn bonuses, and that from a company that is supposedly publicly owned. This culture of bonuses come what may has to come to an end. Yes, OK, my remarks of sending the worst ones stateside was flippant, but largely my point was that these people get paid far too much. As a society, do we find it right that these people are earning x times as much as Doctors, Lawyers, and others whose worth to society is so much more?
I'm with you, Sid, when you say that we should get behind industry and stop knocking; that includes the banks, who should stop rewarding risk takers with massive bonuses for what they do. Remember Barings? Brought down by a 'rogue trader' trying to earn disproportionately large bonuses for himself, his team and ultimately the bank itself. Massive rewards if the risks work, global economic meltdown if they fail, and that cannot be right. Banks need to get back to core business principles of lending to corporate and individuals alike and shift away from high-risk business that jeopardises national and international economies through pure greed. Sadly, Nick Leeson - the 'rogue trader' whose activities brought about the downfall of Baring Bros - looks to be far from being a 'rogue trader', but one of a number who are prepared to risk all for the massive rewards open to them if they pull it off. That's the culture of City greed I'm on about, where the incentives on offer outweigh what is right and proper.
True friends stab you in the front.
25 February 2010
23:0941402#11
Lloyds results out tomorrow. It should be interesting to see how the squillions of pounds we pumped into it have helped (or not!).
Rob Peston's blog on RBS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2010/02/poor_rbs_poor_britain.html gives little cause for optimism as did Frank Field's interview in Today Programme yesterday in which he said we must all look forward to a lowered standard of living..
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 February 2010
23:1841403#12
bob
frank field has been a doom and gloom merchant as long as i can remember.
lucky for him his constituents hardly know he exists.
birkenhead is not a political hotbead, not since militant disbanded anyway.
25 February 2010
23:2841405#13
Howard, doom and gloom maybe, but as far as I am concerned Field on the left and IDS on the right (both I note, as an atheist, with a strong Christian background) have spoken with more honesty and analysis about the sorry state UK plc is in and the way out of it than the rest of the House of Commons collectively.
We can no longer expect an increasing standard of living based on borrowed money and equity release from unrealistically inflated house prices.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
26 February 2010
10:4141421#14
Bob's right, Howard. This country is in debt to the tune of billions; I can't remember the exact statistic, but isn't it something along the lines of a national debt that wouldn't be paid off until the grandchild of a baby born today had reached the aged of 76? That's clearly an emotive stat, given that the age of grandchildren born to the children of today couldn't possibly be calculated, but essentially it comes down to a broad statement that we're deep in the soft and smelly and will be for the next two generations, and that's if we don't borrow another penny in the meantime.
Essentially, therefore, it matters not a fig who forms the next government, they'll be stymied from day one. We can only look forward to further cuts and further tax hikes. We're caught in a spiral of ever increasing debt; exactly as happens in domestic economics, there will have to be hard times ahead as the national belt gets tightened, and doubtless the local councils will feel the effects more than most. Like it or no, we are skint.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
26 February 2010
11:2441424#15
If this country is so skint why are we spending over £3 billion a year on keeping troops in Afghanistan not to mention the heart breaking cost in human lives?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
26 February 2010
12:3741427#16
And I thought Frank Ifield was an Aussie anyway..... "I remember you hoooooo.....!!!"
